Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Schofield denied Rubin’s reconsideration and disqualification motions, leaving the case dismissed.
Lise Rubin, the pro se plaintiff, remains subject to the earlier dismissal of her case. The defendants’ opposition to the reconsideration motion prevailed, and Judge Schofield remained assigned to the matter.
What happened
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, the court had dismissed the complaint after granting defendants’ motion based on failure to follow the rule requiring a clear and organized pleading. Rubin was given a deadline to request permission to file an amended complaint and explain how it would fix the problems, but she did not do so.
Rubin later asked the court to reconsider its earlier orders, raising arguments the court had already rejected and submitting additional documents after the deadline. She also asked Judge Schofield to step aside, claiming the court was biased against her. The court rejected both requests.
Judge Schofield ruled that Rubin could not relitigate previously rejected arguments, that the additional materials were late, and that Rubin had not shown a valid basis for disqualification. The court denied the motion in its entirety.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- June 16, 2023
Background
The court stated that, on March 3, 2023, it had adopted a report and recommendation and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court directed Lise Rubin to file, by March 31, 2023, a letter requesting permission to file an amended complaint and explaining how the proposed complaint would correct the identified deficiencies. The court warned that no extension would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances and that failure to meet the deadline would result in her not being allowed to file the amended complaint and in dismissal of the case.
Rubin filed a motion for reconsideration on March 31, 2023. The court denied that motion on April 12, 2023, finding that it did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice, and did not establish any of the grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Because Rubin did not file the required letter and proposed amended complaint, the case was dismissed.
Motion at Issue
On May 11, 2023, Rubin moved to reconsider the March and April orders. The motion also sought, as construed by the court, to disqualify Judge Schofield under federal judicial-disqualification statutes. Rubin raised substantially the same arguments presented in her earlier reconsideration motion, including arguments about the requirements for the proposed amended complaint and the court’s alleged failure to recognize a sanctions motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that arguments already considered and rejected in the April order could not be litigated again. It also rejected Rubin’s argument that the April order should be vacated because it was issued over Passover. The court stated that any supporting memorandum should have been filed with the earlier motion, which had been filed five days before Passover began. The court further ruled that documents Rubin attempted to submit more than a month after filing the current motion were untimely.
The court separately denied the request for disqualification. It explained that judicial rulings almost never establish bias or partiality because they generally do not show reliance on an outside source. The court found that Rubin’s conclusory assertion that the court had acted with the New York City Law Department and shown extreme bias did not provide a valid basis for disqualification.
Disposition
The court ordered that the motion be denied in its entirety. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and mail a copy of the order to Rubin, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.